If he gets in trouble, his reputation gets more tarnished and his lawsuits will seem frivilous. That's a good thing. This is Warman's own doing. When white nationalists criticize immigration, it's seen as racist when they may actually have good reasons for keeping immigration low and restricted and nothing more - meaning they don't want another holocaust, a pillaging of Chinatown, etc. They do have good intentions behind their words and intentions matter, not possible consequences such as those negative things I just mentioned (we have the law do deal with illegal things, not 'human rights' commissions). Given that intent is what counts but has been made largely irrelevant by these commissions, Warman has opened himself up to these draconian laws.

The only hope is that this will force him and commission members to realize that good, non threatening intent is what matters behind words (simple philosophical arguments against immigration with no underlying desire to lynch or harm immigrant citizens) which I believe many activists like Paul Fromm, Brad Love, etc have but that Warman and the commission don't realize or don't care about.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Drew J again."
Well then, KUDOS anyways! Great post.

Many other crimes have been subjected to the intent claus.
Homicide, for one, adresses the idea that different intent equals different levels of guilt or that it might make the accused innocent all together. Whether or not you agree that intent should influence sentencing, you have to see that people's motivations are often key to understanding. Of course, I'm not comparing speaking your mind to killing someone, but the general concept is there.

He is a leftist activist and a lawyer from Ontario. He is affiliated with the Anti Racist Action group who protest 'right wingers' who defend the free speech of holocaust questioners like Ernst Zundel and criticize immigration and multi culturalism, etc. The ARA likes to wear masks because they are chicken**** punks and they also like to distupt meatings of 'right wingers' and become aggressive. He also likes to libel people insisting they are part of terrorist militias and also likes to intimidate people into cancelling venues or speeches given by people like David Icke, the Illuminati searching reptilian believer by calling Icke an anti semite when he most certainly is not. He believes the holocaust happened and he doesn't blame the worlds problems on 'the jews.'

Warman also played a role in seeing that David Icke would be the victim of a cream pie throwing when he was at a Vancouver bookstore in 2000 but it missed him. A few years ago, a man was convicted of pie-ing former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. So since that is a crime, Warman should be guilty. Warman even tried to get Icke's book about reptilian aliens Children Of The Matrix banned from Canadian bookstores. Why? Because as Warman said, "What benefit can people get from reading it?"

What's really interesting is that this case stands a fair chance of going somewhere. He might argue his motivations absolve him of any wrongdoing; "I didn't mean any of the things I said, I was just saying them to fool people". If it were that easy, a WN could get off by making the same claim.

In legal terms, his chances parallel those of ours. We say the things we say because we believe them, and that they are of profound importance to discuss, for the sake of human survival. This ensures that section 319 cannot be made to stick against us, as the provision is made that "No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) ... if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true". In Warman's situation, however, the next clause might be invoked, that "No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) ... if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada."

Quote:

Hate Propaganda

Advocating genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions
(7) In this section,

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

What's really interesting is that this case stands a fair chance of going somewhere. He might argue his motivations absolve him of any wrongdoing; "I didn't mean any of the things I said, I was just saying them to fool people". If it were that easy, a WN could get off by making the same claim.

Actually he would have to face a hearing under the Canadian Human Rights Act rather then the criminal code if it is indeed a commission hearing rather then a criminal trial. In a commission hearing, truth and even motive are no valid defences to the best of my knowledge.